What is Pluralistic Consequentialism?

[@lonecandle5786]

Who are some of the best moral pluralist philosophers?

[@bjarke7886]

Could you make something like a taxonomic wallpaper on the core terms of philosophy like materialism/idealism and other such dichotomies being a part of it.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Interesting. I did something like this with my map of philosophy, kzbin.info/www/bejne/j6mlhJuAisR2gdU but that is more focused on the areas that philosophy studies as opposed to different positions in philosophy. That's a great idea!

[@adelizeva8927]

I am a bit confused, are Desire or Preference Consequentialism, welfare Consequentialism, Aggregate Consequentialism and Universal Consequentialism, types of Pluralistic consequentialist theories ?

[@Ansatz66]

There's no reason to be overly concerned by the fact that sometimes consequences are hard to weigh against each other. Assuming we can accurately predict the consequences of some action and the consequences of not taking that action, then if we are unable to clearly distinguish which way is better then that simply suggests that the action is morally insignificant. Not every action needs to be a great moral choice or matter of life and death. Sometimes an ethical theory can simply be indifferent to certain choices.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

The concern is more how we can objectively weigh different consequences against each other. It might seem okay in the abstract but it seems that there will be no objective way to determine if breaking a promise is equivalent to stepping on someone's toe, punching them in the face, or breaking their arm. To compare these consequences we need to decide exactly how much pain a lie is worth. I have never seen a theory which does this satisfactorily, maybe one exists.

[@Ansatz66]

It's surely impossible to compare lies against physical pains, but consequentialism doesn't need to do so. The immediate consequences of an action aren't the only consequences that matter. If we must choose between telling a lie versus someone's toe being stepped on, we just need to look beyond the pain to see where these choices will lead. For example, maybe stepping on that toe leads to just momentary pain and then everything turns out well, while telling the lie leads to destroyed trust, ruined relationships, long-term misery. Or maybe a little white lie is just laughed off, while a direct physical attack is what destroys relationships. Either way, it's not hard to objectively measure which series of outcomes is worse. In cases where there is no clear way to measure which is worse, such as both outcomes being trivial or both outcomes being terrible, then we should simply accept that neither choice has any moral weight.

[@Ansatz66]

"The whole point of valuation is that it is not objective though." What does that mean?

[@louisng114]

What if we include time and bad people being happy will reduce the overall happiness in a long run?

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

I don't think that bad people being happy will always decrease overall happiness over time. Who would be harmed if, unbeknownst to anyone else Hitler did not die, but was put in a chamber with a Euphio machine to live out his life. He is a bad person, but his happiness does not seem to do harm to anyone else, even if he is left there for years.

[@louisng114]

Carneades.org But a machine takes resource to run. Wouldn't that mean it takes away happiness from someone else?

[@TJump]

Value the painting more than the bacon?... BACON IS KING.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Mill and Bentham were not so sure, but today many people would probably consider bacon a high pleasure. :)

[@sethapex9670]

If pleasure is considered the singular value on which to judge consequentialist ethics (as in utilitarianism), rather than some other value like freedom, then a political system in which people's lives are controlled by the state to maximize their pleasure (otherwise known as hedonistic fascism or utilitarian fascism), as opposed to granting them the freedom to be harmed by their own mistakes, should be superior to what we have now. I find this conclusion be untenable, and given Mill's libertarian political philosophy, I think he would also. Therefore, it seems that either consequentialist ethics must be pluralistic, based singularly on freedom rather than pleasure, or otherwise totally false as an ethical philosophical system.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

I think Mill's response would simply be that a state which maximizes pleasure but where everyone's lives are controlled is impossible. That freedom causes us enough pleasure that there is no society in which we would like to live which limits our freedom so extremely. If you can show me a dictatorship which actually maximizes happiness, I might reconsider, but I doubt such a thing exists.

[@sethapex9670]

It's actually really easy for the state to make a society where everybody is happy, just kill everyone who isn't. They can't be unhappy if they're dead. (obviously joking. probably.) But in all seriousness, as we speak, the state restricts drugs and sex work in an effort to supposedly make people happier than they would be if those things were legal. You can argue about whether it actually does but the state is currently following rule utilitarianism with regards to those policies, with the rule being to prevent current pleasures like a chemical high that are at the expense of future pleasures like material success. And these are not even dictatorial governments but liberal democracies. And there is a great call to repeal these laws, even from people who have no intention of ever participating in these activities. These non-participants have no stake in the pleasures one way or another, even if it were legal they would not buy drugs or visit a prostitute. It is nothing to them personally if these things are permitted or not permitted. But they agitate for them to be legal all the same. This is not becasue they think the pleasure of it is so important but that the freedom to choose is. And what do you think Nozick's experience machine is supposed to be if not a prison of hallucinogens. If instead of being given the choice to enter the machine your were drugged and unable to resist being put into it, we would say it was terribly unethical, even though the subject was having the most pleasant experiences possible. Freedom doesn't cause pleasure. It allows us to choose between pleasant and unpleasant options. Sometimes we make mistakes and the option we think will be pleasant turns out to be unpleasant. Buddhists would like to claim that all of our sufferings comes from unfulfilled desires. I disagree, but I will grant that very much of it is. In a society with significantly less personal freedom, people quickly learn to be content with what they have. In a society with more freedom, people try to reach for things that they cannot realistically achieve, and this causes them suffering when they fail. You might be able to get a purely intellectual pleasure from the idea of having all that freedom, but you can just as easily fall into despair from it, as discussed by existentialist philosophers like Kierkegaard and Sartre. Ultimately it is not the pleasure that is important at all, but the freedom itself. Freedom allows you to gain both pleasure and pain. Both are a part of being human, we only privilege on over the other because we are predisposed to do so. We avoid our own pain on instinct and we avoid the pain of others insofar as it can lead to pain for ourselves, through empathic or social responses. There is no true moral conviction in it, only instinct. Thus hedonism is more a matter of aesthetics than ethics. I care very little about whether someone is happy or unhappy. That is often dependant on him, his perspective, and his moods. I care far far more about whether someone is free. If he is not, that is often something I've had some degree of control over.

[@GramadinGG]

10/10 would rather have 1lb of bacon that see a painting or read a poem.

[@TJump]

The best of all possible worlds for all possible wills = a world that prioritizes a state of affairs where all wills/beings have sovereignty over themselves and total freedom to achieve their will so long as they do not impose upon the sovereignty of other wills without consent. Objective morality solved.

[@flywheelshyster]

Could you elaborate on that please? I ask simply out interesting and not sure of how the best of all possible worlds idea [which i know only elementary amount]. When I first clicked to reply i ended up clicking your name which led me to one of your videos that looked interesting and I left a comment about some interesting moral idea that have come about recently. I personally struggle with the idea of moral relativity which is something the social justice crowd use [along with totalitarians of the past and the problem of consequentialism always allowing that 'ends justify the means' mentality, but I just can't find an objective morality from my atheistic [more extreme skepticism that I cannot know, epistemologically, anything really for certain] perspective. I wish Camus, my personal favorite philosopher, talked more about morality with his most famous quote about moral living being that he learned all he needed about morality from playing futbol [soccer] on the pitch in his youth. appreciate any response

[@TJump]

The 'The best of all possible worlds for all possible wills' is my idea, not to be confused with 'the best of all possible worlds' from Leibniz, which is not the same thing. I'm working on video about it, talking about how atheist's can have objective morality without God.

[@MitBoy_]

Does this soveregnity counts feelings? If'm i'm being insulted for my gender or race, and the world is full of stereotypes about me, that would negatively affect my life ( google cultivation theory, for example).

[@TJump]

You have a right to censor what goes into your ears you do not have a restrict the freedoms of the one speaking... you can wear ear plugs, change the channel, don't listen, but you cannot silence the speaker because that would be immoral.

[@MitBoy_]

"you can wear ear plugs, change the channel, don't listen, " But that's the thing, you can't realistically, humans aren't creatures whose conscious exists independed of their enviroment, and we aren't creatues who always have the power to shape own enviroment on individual level. Also, I'm not necessarily talking about censoring or restricting someone (this is pragmatic realm where you can have different approaches), but merely philosophical consideration of getting rid of negative social stigmas as being moral good. I doesn't look like your philosophy really cares about that.

[@thenusa]

Ha ha ... the good, the bad and Philosophy. ;) stay scheptical; nice.

[@DManCAWMaster]

A very long word to say

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Yes. Presuppositionalism is worse. at least when it comes to one word.